Isn't a text card required? I can't find anything saying so in the FAQ for MCC (didn't follow the FCC links), and I don't see it in the round thread either.
One of my players didn't submit a text card, but I'm not going to DQ them it wasn't listed anywhere that it was required. (If this hasn't been discussed before, I'd like to bring it up now--while renders are optional, I don't think you should be allowed to skip the text card just because you provided a render).
(Aside: The FAQ could use some editing. If someone PM's me on Tuesday or Wednesday, I'll see if I can take a look at it and PM the results to one of the Hammer team. One example, the last FAQ item says "in edition" which should be "in addition".)
EDIT: My judgings are up. They are not final yet. If you have questions or comments, please post them here or PM me.
A note for other players, I have put some general advice in that post, under the section "A word for my contestants:" if you participate in the MCC as a player, the advice you find there may be helpful to you. If you participate as a judge, you might want to look it over so you can send me a friendly PM if I totally goofed something, or if you strongly disagree with some of the advice I have given.
It's late, if I made a mistake, please PM me, particularly in the polish and balance sections.
Note that yes, I know my scores are typically high all around, I start everyone at 25/25 and work my way down. You only get deductions from me, and I try to keep them pretty standard.
I don't think that judgings should be scored within a range of 22-25. It artificially inflates card quality, and it really sucks to see your card get 23 and find out that you're not even in the top half of your group.
I personally felt that Asrama's and qqpq's judgings were of a high quality. They accurately analysed the submissions, scored the cards realistically and fairly based on the strengths and weaknesses identified, as well as gave helpful advice for future submissions.
Nothing against him, but I would like to call out krynthe's judgings this round. I understand that he is moving and is busy and all, but I cannot accept giving enLight's card a 25/25. His claim that it "has not been done before" is clearly false as the thing is simply a glorified Cenn's Enlistment. It is also open to debate whether an additional colored symbol and a change in rarity allows for this at Instant speed as well as evasion on the tokens.
He also ignores Jimmy Groove's submission being used on your own creatures as a Momentary Blink, choosing to see it purely as a removal spell (in which case it is a bad removal spell and in no way deserves 6/6 for balance).
I could go on, but I think these two examples will suffice for now. Since he presumably will have sorted out his moving problems by Round 2, I think there is no reason to remove him like what happened last round to Raziel. Perhaps, another judge could edit his judgings? I do apologise if my posting on the public forum is inappropriate.
Markino and .hands, thanks for the criticism. My sincere apologies for the rushed job, I knew that I was rushing and was hoping I hadn't missed anything. Clearly, I missed some big ones.
Edits made, sorry to burst bubbles and disappoint with some rank shuffling. I should have waited to review my scoring and post this morning as it seems I would have had time to as 'Trip is running late.
My coming weekends are clear (done moving), so my judging quality should be better for the rest of the month.
I think they key is that people should raise complaints if they can do it politely in order for there to be as little frustration all around as possible.
My feeling is that krynthe is just somewhat new to this and if anyone has specific notes they should PM him with them to help him develop.
Point 1: I do have to commend everyone for being quite polite in their criticisms these past rounds.
Point 2: Please, keep it coming. I much prefer to know where I messed up than to have you guys sit and simmer.
Issues came up in my bracket, brought up to contestants, and the standings changed, most notably the fact I have 5 people advancing. I'm willing to accept the responability if I can't decide who to pass.
Issues came up in my bracket, brought up to contestants, and the standings changed, most notably the fact I have 5 people advancing. I'm willing to accept the responability if I can't decide who to pass.
I also have 5 post-adjustment, so it we're still an even number, hopefully. We'll see if there are other ties as well.
Wow. So just like that I go from first in my bracket to last in my bracket.
I'm was not expecting a perfect score or anything (in fact, I too was surprised that krynthe didn't notice my card's similarity to Cenn's Enlistment). But what kind of mob rule is going on here? I thought the MCC's policy was that player complaints should not dramatically change a judge's score unless he made an objective mistake.
New judges shouldn't be intimidated by player complaints. It will ruin the MCC.
EDIT: And as if the above wasn't bad enough, I just noticed that, because the changed scores resulted in a tie, everyone in the bracket except for me is now going through. This just keeps getting better and better...
Personally, I feel there needs to be a sound objective system to certain aspects of judging. Far too many times have I lost a round because I got a flavor junky judge and they tell me, for example, that I should start adding a bit more flavor to my cards. I say to myself that I'll start designing with more flavor in mind so that if I get this judge again, I'll hit their good spot. Next month I'm playing with my updated lexicon of card design and I get the mechanical judge. This guy doesn't so much care aobut flavor, rather, he cares about mechanical purpose. My card is brimming with flavor this time, but he wants it to be more powerful, less flavorful. So again I lose because of a subjective decision making process. When designing a card, I don't want to have to hope I get a certain judge because that judge will think my card's power level is fine, wheras another judge in mind will think it's underpowered, or even another judge will think it's overpowered.
The option for a judge to cross-reference his judgings with another judge doesn't do it simply because the criteria is still subjective. That other judge could say the same thing, or say something completely different. Also, while I've never done it, it feels like it would be quite rude to ask your judge for a second oppinion.
Personally, I feel there needs to be a sound objective system to certain aspects of judging. Far too many times have I lost a round because I got a flavor junky judge and they tell me, for example, that I should start adding a bit more flavor to my cards. I say to myself that I'll start designing with more flavor in mind so that if I get this judge again, I'll hit their good spot. Next month I'm playing with my updated lexicon of card design and I get the mechanical judge. This guy doesn't so much care aobut flavor, rather, he cares about mechanical purpose. My card is brimming with flavor this time, but he wants it to be more powerful, less flavorful. So again I lose because of a subjective decision making process. When designing a card, I don't want to have to hope I get a certain judge because that judge will think my card's power level is fine, wheras another judge in mind will think it's underpowered, or even another judge will think it's overpowered.
The option for a judge to cross-reference his judgings with another judge doesn't do it simply because the criteria is still subjective. That other judge could say the same thing, or say something completely different. Also, while I've never done it, it feels like it would be quite rude to ask your judge for a second oppinion.
I used to think this same way. My conclusion is that you need a card that does both. Spend time on everything. If you have a card strong in flavor, focus on the power-level. If you have a card with an ability that you love, then focus on the flavor of the card. Truely, a well developed card has both in a neat bundle.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Drink Coffee: Do stupid things faster with more energy."
"Sarcasm is the body's natural defense against Stupidity"
enLight: I'm sorry for what happened to you. I admit that I actually only looked at the top two scores in the group (yours and Jimmy's) and commented based on those. I expected him to look at the rest of the judgings in the same way and make wholesale changes to his judgings. Has he done so, or has he only penalised your card?
enLight: I'm sorry for what happened to you. I admit that I actually only looked at the top two scores in the group (yours and Jimmy's) and commented based on those. I expected him to look at the rest of the judgings in the same way and make wholesale changes to his judgings. Has he done so, or has he only penalised your card?
I adjusted three cards.
enLight, I apologize again for the rush-job, which has most impacted you. Honestly, when I first saw your card, it struck me as the most impressive. I feel that in my rush, I was working more on initial reaction than level headed, research backed judgment. I feel confident in saying that had I discovered Cenn's Enlistment last night during my judging, your score would be similar to what it is now. Please don't feel as though you have been jilted or singled out, and I mean no offense to you as a cardsmith.
...had I discovered Cenn's Enlistment last night during my judging, your score would be similar to what it is now.
You could go back to every card in the bracket and say "had I discovered this" or "had I known that" the card's score would have been different. Changing a few cards after reviewing them is unfair if you haven't reviewed the other cards as well. Why? Because such a review was only conducted after a player complained about something or brought up a point that you had not previously thought of. But not every player does that.
It's unfair to reward "motivated" players who bring up points in PMs and posts when other players don't have the time or the will to nit-pick over every judging. Theoretically, every player could submit a case as to why judgings should be changed or why a certain card should go through or not. But this is unrealistic. In fact, I think it should be discouraged because it would only prolong the competition and reward players with the greatest "rhetorical ability," not necessarily the better cards.
I'm not upset about the score my card recieved. I'm upset that player complaints caused such a dramatic reshuffling of the bracket that the previously-first-place player is now the only one not moving on. This is bad policy. If I were a judge and found myself in such a position, I would apologize for the rushed or mistaken judgings, keep the original scores, and try to do a better job next time--not turn the bracket completely upside-down to appease a few disgruntled players.
I used to think this same way. My conclusion is that you need a card that does both. Spend time on everything. If you have a card strong in flavor, focus on the power-level. If you have a card with an ability that you love, then focus on the flavor of the card. Truely, a well developed card has both in a neat bundle.
This is only an answer to half the problem. It's assuming that I never create flavorful, mechanically sound cards, which I don't think is true. The problem lies in the fact that even if I think the card has it all, or another judge thinks it has it all, one judge might not and that might be the judge I get for that round.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, what's that you say, Karn? You remove poison counters? You should tell that to Mr. Rosewater.
This is only an answer to half the problem. It's assuming that I never create flavorful, mechanically sound cards, which I don't think is true. The problem lies in the fact that even if I think the card has it all, or another judge thinks it has it all, one judge might not and that might be the judge I get for that round.
This. I understand what you are saying Svenn. Even though I've only played through MCC once, i could tell which judges knew what they were doing and which missed some pretty key factors when judging. Nonetheless, I believe one of MCC's goals is to create well rounded judges that have the ability and know how to do the neccessary research for each card and judge accordingly. With that said, this isn't going to happen overnight. I have a high degree of respect for the judges that have been doing a great job time and time again (qqpq, Asrama, WT to name a few), but not everyone is at that calibur right off the bat including myself. Also, whether we try to or not, i feel that each judge is "slightly" biased towards one card creation ideology whether it be mechanical or flavor, but that is what a rubric is for. It gives each a judge an outline of what to judge on so that each judges critique isn't totally different from one another. If this rubric isn't creating that atmosphere, then that is a different problem.
On a different note, since this is my first time judging, I would like some feedback from the players (or other judges) on things I missed or places to concentrate on in the future. Thanks everyone!
This is only an answer to half the problem. It's assuming that I never create flavorful, mechanically sound cards, which I don't think is true. The problem lies in the fact that even if I think the card has it all, or another judge thinks it has it all, one judge might not and that might be the judge I get for that round.
Incorrect. It could imply that, despite your attempts, you were unable to reach a high expectation. If judges graded for effort and not a finished product, this competition would be really lame. Remember: Nobody rises to low expectations. Aim to get very good at each aspect of card design instead of hoping you run into the correct judges.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Drink Coffee: Do stupid things faster with more energy."
"Sarcasm is the body's natural defense against Stupidity"
What if you had different judges judging each card in a different catagory. For instance, what if design, flavor and polish were seperated among different judges. Instead of one judge judging 8 different cards for all subsets, what if that one judge judged 24 cards, but only in the flavor catagory. That way each person has three different eyes on their card and it isn't any more work for the judges. You'll probably only have 3 or four brackets that way aswell. I haven't delved into it much, and it's probably riddled with holes.
Anyways, I understand that this has been discussed to death, so I'll go cry myself to sle. . . er, play some magic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, what's that you say, Karn? You remove poison counters? You should tell that to Mr. Rosewater.
LOL, and of course I completely miss the round requirements and make a Sorcery! Man, I really need to read the damn requirements every time I change my card to make it "better".
I'll agree with this, although what's done is done as far as Round 1 is concerned.
Yeah, well it's annoying that everyone seems to feel "what's done is done" after the bracket was turned upside-down (and, by the way, after the Round 1 judging deadline passed). No one seemed to share that sentiment yesterday.
This whole episode has left a very poor taste in my mouth.
Isn't a text card required? I can't find anything saying so in the FAQ for MCC (didn't follow the FCC links), and I don't see it in the round thread either.
One of my players didn't submit a text card, but I'm not going to DQ them it wasn't listed anywhere that it was required. (If this hasn't been discussed before, I'd like to bring it up now--while renders are optional, I don't think you should be allowed to skip the text card just because you provided a render).
(Aside: The FAQ could use some editing. If someone PM's me on Tuesday or Wednesday, I'll see if I can take a look at it and PM the results to one of the Hammer team. One example, the last FAQ item says "in edition" which should be "in addition".)
EDIT: My judgings are up. They are not final yet. If you have questions or comments, please post them here or PM me.
A note for other players, I have put some general advice in that post, under the section "A word for my contestants:" if you participate in the MCC as a player, the advice you find there may be helpful to you. If you participate as a judge, you might want to look it over so you can send me a friendly PM if I totally goofed something, or if you strongly disagree with some of the advice I have given.
Die Fools!!!
Looking for a Pokemon RP:
http://pokemonhaven223.proboards.com
Indulge your inner trainer today....
My home town! Hope you enjoyed
"Sarcasm is the body's natural defense against Stupidity"
It's late, if I made a mistake, please PM me, particularly in the polish and balance sections.
Note that yes, I know my scores are typically high all around, I start everyone at 25/25 and work my way down. You only get deductions from me, and I try to keep them pretty standard.
I may review the cards again tomorrow, but as of now, everything looks in order.
PM for any concerns, but try and be nice.
Winner of the First and Fourth Double Dare Single Elimination Contests
2009 July CCL: COMING THIS JULY
2008 December CCL: The Mechinations of Fate
Double Dare to Design: The 5th Single Elimination Contest
Double Dare That Designer: The 2nd Single Elimination Contest
H/W List http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=112656
I personally felt that Asrama's and qqpq's judgings were of a high quality. They accurately analysed the submissions, scored the cards realistically and fairly based on the strengths and weaknesses identified, as well as gave helpful advice for future submissions.
Nothing against him, but I would like to call out krynthe's judgings this round. I understand that he is moving and is busy and all, but I cannot accept giving enLight's card a 25/25. His claim that it "has not been done before" is clearly false as the thing is simply a glorified Cenn's Enlistment. It is also open to debate whether an additional colored symbol and a change in rarity allows for this at Instant speed as well as evasion on the tokens.
He also ignores Jimmy Groove's submission being used on your own creatures as a Momentary Blink, choosing to see it purely as a removal spell (in which case it is a bad removal spell and in no way deserves 6/6 for balance).
I could go on, but I think these two examples will suffice for now. Since he presumably will have sorted out his moving problems by Round 2, I think there is no reason to remove him like what happened last round to Raziel. Perhaps, another judge could edit his judgings? I do apologise if my posting on the public forum is inappropriate.
Edits made, sorry to burst bubbles and disappoint with some rank shuffling. I should have waited to review my scoring and post this morning as it seems I would have had time to as 'Trip is running late.
My coming weekends are clear (done moving), so my judging quality should be better for the rest of the month.
Point 1: I do have to commend everyone for being quite polite in their criticisms these past rounds.
Point 2: Please, keep it coming. I much prefer to know where I messed up than to have you guys sit and simmer.
Winner of the First and Fourth Double Dare Single Elimination Contests
2009 July CCL: COMING THIS JULY
2008 December CCL: The Mechinations of Fate
Double Dare to Design: The 5th Single Elimination Contest
Double Dare That Designer: The 2nd Single Elimination Contest
I also have 5 post-adjustment, so it we're still an even number, hopefully. We'll see if there are other ties as well.
I'm was not expecting a perfect score or anything (in fact, I too was surprised that krynthe didn't notice my card's similarity to Cenn's Enlistment). But what kind of mob rule is going on here? I thought the MCC's policy was that player complaints should not dramatically change a judge's score unless he made an objective mistake.
New judges shouldn't be intimidated by player complaints. It will ruin the MCC.
EDIT: And as if the above wasn't bad enough, I just noticed that, because the changed scores resulted in a tie, everyone in the bracket except for me is now going through. This just keeps getting better and better...
Commander: Gwafa Hazid, Profiteer WU
The option for a judge to cross-reference his judgings with another judge doesn't do it simply because the criteria is still subjective. That other judge could say the same thing, or say something completely different. Also, while I've never done it, it feels like it would be quite rude to ask your judge for a second oppinion.
I used to think this same way. My conclusion is that you need a card that does both. Spend time on everything. If you have a card strong in flavor, focus on the power-level. If you have a card with an ability that you love, then focus on the flavor of the card. Truely, a well developed card has both in a neat bundle.
"Sarcasm is the body's natural defense against Stupidity"
I adjusted three cards.
enLight, I apologize again for the rush-job, which has most impacted you. Honestly, when I first saw your card, it struck me as the most impressive. I feel that in my rush, I was working more on initial reaction than level headed, research backed judgment. I feel confident in saying that had I discovered Cenn's Enlistment last night during my judging, your score would be similar to what it is now. Please don't feel as though you have been jilted or singled out, and I mean no offense to you as a cardsmith.
You could go back to every card in the bracket and say "had I discovered this" or "had I known that" the card's score would have been different. Changing a few cards after reviewing them is unfair if you haven't reviewed the other cards as well. Why? Because such a review was only conducted after a player complained about something or brought up a point that you had not previously thought of. But not every player does that.
It's unfair to reward "motivated" players who bring up points in PMs and posts when other players don't have the time or the will to nit-pick over every judging. Theoretically, every player could submit a case as to why judgings should be changed or why a certain card should go through or not. But this is unrealistic. In fact, I think it should be discouraged because it would only prolong the competition and reward players with the greatest "rhetorical ability," not necessarily the better cards.
I'm not upset about the score my card recieved. I'm upset that player complaints caused such a dramatic reshuffling of the bracket that the previously-first-place player is now the only one not moving on. This is bad policy. If I were a judge and found myself in such a position, I would apologize for the rushed or mistaken judgings, keep the original scores, and try to do a better job next time--not turn the bracket completely upside-down to appease a few disgruntled players.
Commander: Gwafa Hazid, Profiteer WU
This is only an answer to half the problem. It's assuming that I never create flavorful, mechanically sound cards, which I don't think is true. The problem lies in the fact that even if I think the card has it all, or another judge thinks it has it all, one judge might not and that might be the judge I get for that round.
This. I understand what you are saying Svenn. Even though I've only played through MCC once, i could tell which judges knew what they were doing and which missed some pretty key factors when judging. Nonetheless, I believe one of MCC's goals is to create well rounded judges that have the ability and know how to do the neccessary research for each card and judge accordingly. With that said, this isn't going to happen overnight. I have a high degree of respect for the judges that have been doing a great job time and time again (qqpq, Asrama, WT to name a few), but not everyone is at that calibur right off the bat including myself. Also, whether we try to or not, i feel that each judge is "slightly" biased towards one card creation ideology whether it be mechanical or flavor, but that is what a rubric is for. It gives each a judge an outline of what to judge on so that each judges critique isn't totally different from one another. If this rubric isn't creating that atmosphere, then that is a different problem.
On a different note, since this is my first time judging, I would like some feedback from the players (or other judges) on things I missed or places to concentrate on in the future. Thanks everyone!
(CubeTutor & MTGS)
360 Peasant Cube!
Custom Cube
RWU Miracles RWU
Incorrect. It could imply that, despite your attempts, you were unable to reach a high expectation. If judges graded for effort and not a finished product, this competition would be really lame. Remember: Nobody rises to low expectations. Aim to get very good at each aspect of card design instead of hoping you run into the correct judges.
"Sarcasm is the body's natural defense against Stupidity"
Anyways, I understand that this has been discussed to death, so I'll go cry myself to sle. . . er, play some magic.
Yeah, well it's annoying that everyone seems to feel "what's done is done" after the bracket was turned upside-down (and, by the way, after the Round 1 judging deadline passed). No one seemed to share that sentiment yesterday.
This whole episode has left a very poor taste in my mouth.
Commander: Gwafa Hazid, Profiteer WU